Of course Hillary Clinton was not asking for someone to take out Barack Obama. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that.

The crux of the matter for me, anyway, seems to be that Hillary Clinton inadvertently portrayed herself as a kind of political vulture. Talk about conduct unbecoming of a serious presidential candidate....

I think we would all be advised to look at the African American press reaction instead of endlessly gazing in our mirrors. Suggestions to this white man for how to do that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

After all that she has done in this campaign, it is a little hard cutting Hillary Clinton some slack on this. She has made a lot of tasteless remarks. That is a sign of bad judgment and a poor character.

Juan Cole has an excellent commentary (May 24) on this topic, essentially supporting Ms. Schrock's comment.

However, we might note that Hillary and Bill have shown a capacity for indifference to human lives with Bill presiding over the US-sponsored UN sanctions that cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives and Hillary voting for the horrendous Iraq war for political reasons. Accordingly, if people are predisposed to thinking of her (and him) as some kind of ogre no one should be surprised whether that thought is justified or not.

"As far as I know" Clinton doesn't make comments that have not been tested. She says what she intends to say.

This is predictably lame, Doretta. The content is clear. She is saying "as long as Obama has any chance of meeting his demise, I'm going to stay in this." We got a snapshot of her mind. And if she is that confused and inarticulate and undisciplined, and has such a lack of awareness of the impact of what she says, her choice of words, how her statements are going to be perceived, she is so grossly inept, she is disqualified from being president. She has made this statement before, in another setting. And factually it's just wrong. Kennedy had only been in the race for two months. She made this same statement before so it's not like it was a misstatement. And the non-apology, apology, "if anyone was offended." IF, IF, IF, how non perceptive can you get. She should have apologized to Sen. Obama and his family and accepted full responsibility for the implications of what she was saying. So your defense of her is indefensible, and lame, lame, lame. And disingenuous...

One thing I find weird is that it's not even a good example as a matter of political history. The question that triggered HRC's remark was something to the effect of, "so, you don't believe the party unity argument?" Her remark was framed as an explanation of why she didn't agree with the argument that an extended primary season would compromise party unity. A lack of party unity is presumably of concern because it may have a negative impact on the party's ability to compete in the general. So, even if we pretend for a moment that she didn't say "assassination," and only meant to reference 1968 as an example of a primary season lasting through June, the analogy points the wrong way. The details of what happened in 1968 are fascinating and complex, but for now, suffice it to say the Democratic party was not unified, and Nixon won.

A brief addendum. Her statement about the '92 campaign was not factual either. I worked in that campaign and by April it was pretty much over. Jerry Brown had become a marginal candidate by then but the nomination was in Clinton's hands.

For months, we've been hearing how Clinton needed to get out so that Obama could begin running against McCain. Well, you've got a majority of pledged delegates and supers. What exactly are you guys waiting for?

Go ahead and run your campaign. If you've got any ideas other than "Hillary's a bitch," or any storylines that don't involve the Great Clinton Menace, now would be a great time to start hearing some of them.

Something tells me the threads about actual issues will never be as active as this one's been.

John

[Obnoxious and libelous conspiracy theory deleted. -editor.]

I don't think that it is necessary to try to probe into Senator Clinton's heart and soul to analyze her remark about Robert Kennedy's assassination. It has been a long and grueling campaign for her, especially in the last month. She could easily have botched the point she was trying to make. (I also think that we all are a little too quick on the draw to judge a person's heart by one comment, whether that person is Clinton, Obama, McCain or a co-worker or friend.)

The effect of the statement, though, is subject to analysis. (I can immediately discount some of the more fevered voices. Keith Olbermann, who I often like, is apparently starting construction on a wonderful palace in Bavaria.) The remark WILL be interpreted as a speculation about Obama's death. It WILL stir deep distrust in the African-American community. It WILL squelch any talk of Clinton being the VP on the Democratic ticket. And at a minimum, it WILL lead many sober minds to question whether Clinton is up to the job. By itself, it would not have wrecked her campaign. In her current fragile position, and on top of other remarks, I think the result will be quite toxic.

If she only meant the June part, and not the assassination part, why did she put assassination into a talking point that she has repeated? That word doesn't enter an experienced politician's campaign rheroric by accident. Her point was that anything could happen, even at this late stage. And since suddenly winning California ain't gonna happen in June, she added a second, more plausible example.

John M, Obama is indeed running a general election campaign now. The problem is that his greatest possible allies, the most prominent members of the Democratic party, are campaigning for his defeat.

Also, please don't use that word regarding Hillary. I don't.

I'm inclined to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I certainly wouldn't argue with others who think otherwise. It could have been a careless choice of words - or a Freudian slip. She just has too many skeletons in her closet.

This is from an article on Alternet: "Nothing reveals more clearly how utterly unprincipled the Clintons are than their assertion that rules set by the Democratic Party's Rules Committee, and endorsed by all Clinton representatives on this Committee, now should be abandoned. Nothing reveals more clearly that the only rules the Clintons follow are rules which favor them. Nothing reveals how exaggerated their claims are than Hillary's recent comparison of the votes in Michigan and Florida to the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe and the 2000 election in Florida."

Click here for the full article: What Game Is Hillary Playing?

Democratic headquarters should issue a directive on whether I should be offended or laugh at last weeks Huckibee joke!

Dick Durbin via Josh Kardon: "I know Hillary Clinton, and the last thing in the world she'd ever want is to wish misfortune on anybody."

I have a lot of respect for Dick Durbin, but his remark doesn't square with Hillary's thought about obliterating Iran.

Josh K., I agree with Durbin that she wasn't saying Obama should be shot. And I expect leaders of the party to work hard to walk back and tone down the divisive remarks in this campaign.

But Durbin is clearly using a straw man here. As though as long as she doesn't openly advocate for her opponent's death, her assassination rhetoric is acceptable.

We're allowed to disagree, and strongly.

Editor, please remove the Clintons-as-serial-killers garbage by the Troll Known As Chuck Roppa.

That Bobby Kennedy comment was no accident, although I don't think Hillary anticipated the blowback.

I find it particularly odd, in light of Huckaby's similar faux a week or so ago in a speech to the National Rifle Association. There was the bang of a metal chair tipping over. Said Huckaby:

"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

Hillary's Bobby Kennedy remark, now and back in March, may be intended as a bridge to discussing a Convention floor fight.

People forget that Bobby Kennedy was not the front runner, even with the June 5, 1968 California primary victory, on the day he was shot. Bobby was going to Chicago to try to jam up the Convention and get by Humphrey.

That is, evidently, what Hillary intends to do.

All the facts needed for Oregon's Super Delegates to choose between Obama and Clinton are now on the table. The rest should, now, follow Jenny Greenleaf and announce, to erase any doubt about the winner of Oregon's Presidential primary.

http://john.bradach.net/

For those of you sick of the last 8 years, why do you wish for another candidate who is unable to accept responsibilities for mistakes and say "I was wrong, I am sorry." If Hillary wins, it's another 4 years of spin and dissembling and subterfuge. She should have apologized to Obama as well as the Kennedy's for the statement. But instead she and her surrogates are spinning this thing as usual.

"I absolutely agree with Doretta on this one. Mentioning the assasination was incidental to the self-evident point Hillary was making - that campaigns have been up in the air as late as June.

My personal hunch is that the actual assasination itself serves as an internal memory trigger for Hillary and that's the only reason it came out of her mouth. "

People of my generation (in college when Bobby Kennedy was shot) may still be able to picture exactly where they were when they heard the news, have a visceral reaction to the words "now it is on to Chicago and let's win there" and otherwise have instinctive reactions to comments like this. Given the bad news the Kennedy family got this week about the health of the last remaining Kennedy brother, it struck some people of all ages as being in extremely poor taste.

Some things like this are like a dentist's drill hitting a nerve, and she was right to apologize. It is possible to get a point across without causing that rection, and anyone who has been in politics as long as the candidate who says she would be "ready on Day 1" should know any words coming out of their mouths have consequences!

Kristin, I agree, she's not doing her VP chances any favors. First, she's got her surrogates, including her husband, out publicly campaigning for it, which is such a faux pas. Then, the tone of the VP campaign is "she deserves it." There's actually a pressure campaign going on. That would get most people crossed off the list. Who wants a VP who's telling you how to make your decisions, and getting their friends to add to the pressure?

And then, she goes and talks about assassinations. Repeatedly.

Before her comments became public, Senator and DLC leader Tom Carper said in his Hillary-for-veep advocacy, "She would be a good president if something ever were to happen to him." But people can't say things like that anymore.

I once joked that if Obama were to make Clinton his VP, he would have to hire an official taster. That joke just isn't funny anymore, because now it sounds serious. It's sad that that's where the campaign is at now.

I wish she had exited when I still respected her.

[Obnoxious and libelous conspiracy theory deleted. -editor.]

Unfortunately, our Libel laws make it near impossible to libel public figures like the Clintons.

Thanks for deleting the crazy talk, but most of us recognized it for what it was before the editor labeled it as such.

Maybe in the future when you delete a comment, you should delete the author's name as well.

If you're not going to delete the entire comment, (as well as the author's name), maybe you should just leave the entire thing so that readers can judge it for themselves on its own merit, or lack thereof, rather than being fed the editor's characterization.

Seems like that would be the fairest way to handle such cases, for both the authrors and the readers

Slip of the tongue or not, it was a wholly inappropriate comment.

And Clinton has been saying this since March (as reported by Time magazine).

Maybe when a candidate gets to this point, slip of the tongue or not, the campaign has run it's course and is beginning to spiral into places even Hillary Clinton doesn't want it to go.

John C: The Oregon primary is over, true, and our nominee is decided, too, but Clinton is still advocating for his defeat. Until she decides she's done with that tune, I won't be harmonizing with her.

I have long felt that HRC should ride out the primary until the first week of June before conceding. I have also felt that she has earned the VP nomination.

Our country has a sinister history when it comes to our greatest leaders. This is certainly not HRC's fault, it is just reality. Obama is the brightest political star we as a nation have had in my lifetime. HRC's comment was in all likelihood unintentional. But at best it was still dangerous, inappropriate, and irresponsible. At worst, much worse.

I now think she should drop out early next week. I no longer think she is an appropriate VP choice. I say this with a heavy heart, because I have long respected her, but this is serious. It's time to end this now.

I disagree in the strongest terms possible. The Kennedy's were the candidates of hope and change. The Reverend Martin Luther King too. All silenced. The losses demoralized individuals who would otherwise have worked for a better country.

It is morally wrong for a national figure to engage is such talk. Once it is said, it cannot be unsaid.

Josh, when my son was born 1 month after 9/11/01, I gave him the middle name William, after William Jefferson Clinton. I ran a family child care business for 3 1/2 years that I called Pumpkin Village Progressive Family Child Care, because I believed in Hillary's idea that it takes a village to raise a child. Clearly I have honored and respected this family for a long time.

What is so hard and so devastating for me, as one who completely supports Obama but who has respected the clintons for many years, is that they have acted in this campaign in a way that makes me sad and ashamed. When one of your heroes makes you question how you could have ever looked up to them in the first place, it hurts in a way that words cannot describe.

I've tried to be gracious to Hillary Clinton and her supporters as she finishes out this race, in part because of the memory I have of what it felt like to be one of them through some difficult times in the 90's, and in part because we are all Democrats who want the same things. The burden is not on me or any Obama supporter today to ignore these comments, to prove that we can let her lose with grace.

The burden has been on her to show her followers that losing a well fought campaign is nothing to be ashamed of. She hasn't seemed to have any desire to do that. This comment was part of an argument she's been making that she was treated unfairly. She's constructed an argument that she hasn't lost this race because Obama won, but rather because the media has been unfair, the process and rules she agreed to were unfair, and in this claim she stated that the calls for her to quit have been unprecedented and unjustified. Instead of using comparable campaigns as examples, like say Carter/Kennedy in 1980, she chose to use one of the most devastating moments in our party and our nation's history as justification for why we should continue to respectfully stand by while she battles on, all the way to the Convention (as she claimed she would do earlier this week).

Well, I won't defend the indefensible for the Clintons. Clearly, Hillary believes that words don't matter - they are "just words", but I teach my children that words can wound for a reason. These words hurt me. I and others have every right to feel hurt and saddened by them today, and you sir have no right to tell me or any other Democrat that we are being unloyal when we refuse to excuse the inexcusable.

This is ridiculous. This was a stupid statement like "bitter" and "sweetie". Lets move on, this is just one of the last gasps of her campaign. Dwelling on it for the next few weeks is going to have no impact on the outcome, except to further embitter Clinton-ites.

This was no gaffe nor misstep. She quite bluntly said she is in the race because they take a long time, and besides that the other guy could be shot. She's said it before. It's intentional. It's disgusting. And it's the dumbest goddam reason I've ever heard a non-fringe candidate ever give as qualifications for office...."because something could happen to the other guy."

Totally agree. The overt and dog-whistle racism, and this vulture-watching-for-an-opening assassination BS are not slips. It is all calculated as hell, and completely nauseating.

Much as I've wished for a woman president, and cheered Shirley Chisolm, and dreamed of Barbara Jordan or Pat Schrader in the oval office, and rooted for Geraldine Ferraro, as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't vote for Clinton for dog catcher after this. She is morally disqualified.

John Calhoun at 11:04 a.m. But does Clinton realize that the race is over? Andrea Mitchell thought so and said that the Clinton campaign was just going through the motions now. I would like to see that in the remaining primaries, but I don't. Clinton's behavior has gone nuclear instead. Setting aside the assassination remark, I am referring to the meeting a week from today before the rules committee and the expected demonstration by Clinton supporters. I do not think the rules committee will decide in her favor in spite of the number of her representatives on it, but even after the meeting and Obama's passing the finishing line soon after, she is indicating that she will attempt to poach superdelegates until August and may fight for them at the convention. Neither is she going to agree with any settlement of MI and FL which does not give her alone their pledged delegates. I have no assurance that she will try to bring her supporters around to Obama before November either. There is also such a thing as grace in defeat, and I don't expect it to happen.

Sadie: Thank you.

While some here may want to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on whether she actually wants to see Obama out of the race one way or another...

You cannot discount the fact that Hillary cannot admit when she's wrong. She cannot admit to making mistakes. She cannot accept defeat under any terms. This is evident in her marriage, her Iraq vote, and her conduct during this campaign. Doesn't this remind you of anyone?

This is a remarkably irresponsible comment for her to have made as a candidate for the Presidency. Can you imagine the kind of trouble comments like this will cause if she ever actually made it to the White House? Do you really think the leaders of other nations would take kindly to such commentary?

If she cannot work well under stress/sleep deprivation as some say this comment reveals, we should not expect she would function any better as the Leader of the Free World. this is a character-baring moment for Hillary, and she clearly isn't standing up well to the scrutiny.

The problem was that she said it. Whatever her motives, she should have had the better sense not to evoke the image, not to make reference to the possibility. That she does not recognize that shows a very serious lack of understanding about "words" and how they matter.

Obama has just made a statement about this while in Puerto Rico on Saturday. As usual, he is not pressing HRC on her gaffes:

This afternoon, Barack Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's comments yesterday when she referenced th assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason she's staying in the race this year. Obama said he believes that Clinton was not trying to be offensive.

"Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that."

HRC's record in the White House: Health care reform failure; failed mostly because of secrecy and unwillingness to compromise Travel gate. Not much of a scandal, but it became one because it was so poorly handled * Missing FBI files. Remember this? FBI files went missing then miraculously appear in a closet of coffee table. Sure.

HRC's record on the campaign trail: Agreed early on the MI and FL delegates would not be seated; kept her own name on the ballot in MI; compared following the rules previously agreed upon to Mugabe's Zimbawe--claimed the Democratic Party was conspiring to disenfranchise voters Made up an insane story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire when she had actually been greeted by a poem read by a 13-year-girl (OK, teenage poetry CAN be scary, but still...not sniper fire.) Issued statements designed to intentionally confuse her supporters amount the number of delegates needed to win (hint: FL and MI's don't count) Said she was staying in the campaign because sometimes your opponents get assassinated Referred to her supporters as "hard-working Americans, white Americans" implying those are synonyms Employed husband in hateful race-baiting in the S.C. primaries * Said she would obliterate Iran if they gave us any trouble

This is a person of extremely poor judgment who would never have risen to national prominence without riding on the coattails of her husband just like G.W. Bush road the coattails of his father. She has an appalling political record steeped in failure and a clear tendency to panic under pressure (the Bosnia remark was INSANE; the recent Obama plainly threatening.)

She does not belong in the White House or the senate. Time for the party leaders to put away their fear of the Clintons and lead HRC offstage.

What is so hard and so devastating for me, as one who completely supports Obama but who has respected the clintons for many years, is that they have acted in this campaign in a way that makes me sad and ashamed.

The Clintons began making people "sad and ashamed" a long time before this campaign which helps to explain why they are so polarizing. They are also among the many reasons some of us abandoned what tenuous connections we had with the Democratic Party and became independents, non-aligned, or members of other parties. Fortunately for Monica Lewinsky she took Linda Tripp's advice about keeping her stained blue dress in a secure place. Without that Slick Willy would have dispatched his hatchet men with Mr. Mary Matlin, aka James Carville, in the lead to destroy her.

I recently came across another article taking the sheen off Clinton's claim for economic stewardship - Rubin's poisoned chalice. The author, a distinguished commentator on history and economics, suggests that Rubinomics were the start of conditions leading to some of the current bursting bubbles. This and other factors suggest that Clinton will go down in history as something less than a great president.

Clinton had brought up this subject before, multiple times, before. She didn't even have the good sense to figure out it might not be the greatest reference to make, three days after EMK's cancer diagnosis and coming up on the 40th anniversary of RFK's assassination. Given the chance to further explain her remarks, she specifically omits any remorse or clarification to any individual of, or to an ethnic group that has also lost opportunities due to assassination. What exactly should Democrats who want to keep an open mind about Hillary's electability, for now or the future, think about it?

And no, I'm sorry, saying voters are "bitter" in no way equates to what came out of Hillary's mouth the other day, in terms of the magic word said, and how it could be taken by the crazier amongst us.

As far as I'm concerned, Hillary needs a few days off to decide how best to respond to this. It's tin-eared at best and horrifying at worst. She was most likely done for this year anyway. If she's spoken her last words on this subject, she won't have a Senate seat to run for again, IMHO. She's done.

Chris Lowe writes:

"But no serious pro-Clinton supporter rejected it. None of them acknowledged that being emotionally inspired by Barack Obama and by Hillary Clinton are similar phenomena, none of them ever criticized comments that the supporters were mindless zombies caught up in an inexplicable mania.

"The willingness of the Clinton campaign and of Clinton supporters to tolerate all of that without a word of questioning or crititicism makes your argument now just so hollow.

"I was neutral. Obama did not win my vote, Hillary drove me to it."

Wow, this so much represents my own experience and feelings, it's scary.

I posted appeals in a number of threads here on Blue Oregon, asking that Clinton supporters acknowledge that my preference for Obama might be based on rational thought processes. And I never got anyone to agree that that was possible--that I wasn't an "Obamabot", that I hadn't "drunk the Kool-Aid", yadda yadda yadda. Nobody likes being taken for granted; nobody likes being treated like a deluded fool. There were always plenty of good reasons that someone might prefer Hillary Clinton, weren't there? Clinton supporters are not zombies or fools. We've just made different choices. Indeed, I once preferred Clinton myself after my first choice (Richardson) had dropped out. Nobody slipped me any Kool-Aid; I just became disillusioned with Hillary Clinton and decided her "35 years of experience" were more of a reason NOT to vote for her than otherwise.

This has clearly become Hillary's "Welcome to America, macaca" moment.

In this one comment she destroyed any chance of VP and certainly her candidacy. Stick a fork in Hillary, she's done.

Bring on Bill to campaign for Barack!

This is not the first time Hillary has exercised bad judgement.

1. Her vote to give Bush a blank check.

2. Her view that going after Saddam was the right thing to do.

3. Her refusal to recant 1 and 2.

If she is elected, it will be the third term of the Bush Administration.

Oh, yeah, I would like an specific enumeration of this "experience" she has.

If she blows this up like I expect, we will stop her, but it will be painful and costly.

Please, Hillary, stand down, now.

If she's spoken her last words on this subject, she won't have a Senate seat to run for again, IMHO.

If the people of New York state can re-elect Chuck Schumer to the senate, they won't have any problem re-electing Hillary.

One thing about this incident it makes it easy to visualize President Hillary saying of Iranian and other Shi'ite insurgents after a shock-and-awe event on Iran, "Bring it on" to prove she can out-macho Dubya.

Doretta,

"My concern is not so much for Hillary. It's that I see in this the echo of where George Bush and Karl Rove have taken politics in America."

Is that your idea of making a more rounded essay of your defense of Sen. Clinton's repeated use of a fear- and hate-mongering meme to advance her campaign? It rather redounds to her own discredit.

Doretta, you said it yourself:

"As I said, she deserves every bit of pushback she's gotten for some of her other comments and strategies and it's hard to complain too much that those things have reduced people's tolerance."

Sen. Clinton is now seen as bitterly opposing Sen. Obama's looming clinch of the nomination, and consequently her comments are being more closely scrutinized by people sensitive to the coming period of reconciliation necessary to unification of the party.

Well, it's fair enough to point out that Clinton had used this word before and no one called her on it. KO admitted that the press at large "failed" Clinton on that in his special comment. Almost the same exact verbiage had been used by people in the crowds at one or two of the Clinton rallies, however, and the Clinton spokespeople disavowed the comments. Why didn't they take their own advice??

Then also, Clinton used this word back on Mar. 6, then referred to the event again w/o using the word in May, then used it again the other day. So why in the world would Clinton toggle back and forth? And why, once again, would she be so dense as to choose to use the word before and after the times that Kennedys were in the news and approaching a historical Kennedy anniversary?

Will voters and the news media forget about this when/if Clinton runs for the Senate again? The demographic group that's been her strongest one to date is the senior citizens over 60. I would imagine that many of them still remember the tragic events of 1968 with great horror. I would imagine they would be the ones who would take the greatest offense at the negative implications of her words.

"If Hillary is going to pay politically I want it to be for her deliberate and calculated strategies, not for having something that she intended to be benign come out wrong."

To paraphrase New York Times columnist Frank Rich, writing on another Clinton shenanigan:

"No one believes this spin for the simple reason that no one believes Mrs. Clinton is an idiot."

Moreover, it was Time correspondent Karen McNulty (SP?) who said that Clinton's comment was inappropriate back in march when she first said it Time editors, and it's inappropriate now.

As I said earlier, I think going down this road, slip of the tongue or not, is proof positive that Hillary Clinton's campaign has long since run its course.

Whether Hillary and Bill meant what proved to be controversial statements is clearly debatable, but there should be no dispute they are divisive figures. If Obama become president he should take out a restraining order to keep them as far away from the White House as possible.

Senator Clinton has become the caricature Carl Rove prepared of her in 2001. By her own actions. How sad.

Doretta, with my emphasis: I really think that the only point she was making was that it isn't particularly unusual for primary campaigns to go into June. I do recognize, however, that Hillary is herself responsible in large measure for many people's unwillingness to give her the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Exactly! What would it really take, after all, for Hillary Clinton to just stand up and say something like this:

"I realize now that some people think I was raising the awful possibility that Sen. Obama might be killed. I want to tell you that I never meant that, and I apologize not only to Sen. Obama and his family, but to all Americans who might have interpreted my remarks that way."

That would take her about 30 seconds to say. Not only would it--as a matter of political tactics--go a long way to helping Sen. Clinton get herself out of the hole she's dug for herself, but more importantly, it would show that she actually appreciates how her words have affected people.

I have no expectation that Sen. Clinton is going to adopt my suggestion. She just does not apologize. Her ehtire political career, her entire persona seems to be built around the idea of circling the wagons and refusing to admit error. Thus her "sorry if you were offended" ersatz apology.

This isn't about Mark Penn, or Howard Wolfson, or any other members of the Clinton campaign and spin machine. It's about Hillary Clinton's deepest instincts. It's the same instincts that kept her from retracting her war-powers vote. She just doesn't apologize for anything.

Most of us can forgive a lot of mistakes if the offending party just owns up to the mistakes. But pig-headedness is another matter.

By the way, Senator Clinton on Sunday published a piece in the NY Daily News commenting on the reaction to her "assassination" remark. It is primarily a pitch for her campaign and offers neither a meaningful apology nor any sense that she actually understands why so many people are upset. In other words, it's completely consistent with what I would have expected. Sad.

Except that it seems to me that the Clintons are only divisive when they're not getting what they want. When they get what they want then they can be as magnanamous as anyone.

In other words, you are either with them or against them. I seem to recall another president saying something similar that was followed by stuff hitting the fan. His name escapes me at the present, but if it comes back, I'll let you know.

This is from HRC's oped in the New York Daily News: "I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter - ..."

If true, then this may be part of her problem. As the saying in poker goes, "you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them" or as the alcoholics' prayer puts it, "Grant me the serenity to accept what I can't change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." It is looking more and more likely that Hillary just doesn't know when to fold them and that she lacks the wisdom to know the difference.

Just for historical completeness. Bush -Rove -Cheney -Rumsfeld never admitted mistakes and continued to repeat falsehoods, probably a Frank Luntz strategy.

I'm looking forward to the Obama-McCain campaign. It may be a new animal. On the other hand, the 527's may be rabid.

"I'm looking forward to the Obama-McCain campaign. It may be a new animal. On the other hand, the 527's may be rabid."

On Face the Nation today, Lindsey Graham was asked about reports that he is an advisor to a rather virulent 527 and he didn't really deny it. Wouldn't it be great if it became a social liability (like smoking indoors or drunk driving) to be caught campaigning for a candidate AND being affiliated with a 527?

LT,

From your lips to God's ear...

Has anyone bothered to consider the fact that many voters do not think Sen. Obama is the embodiment of "change", "hope", or the second coming of the Kennedys? Just because many of you feel that Sen. Obama is RFK or JFK of a new generation, doesn't make it true. Thus, when Sen. Clinton (who obviously doesn't think Sen. Obama is a Kennedy) makes a reference to RFK it is very easy to see it has NOTHING to do with Sen. Obama.

The fact of the matter is that the 15 years of distortion and lies about Sen. Clinton have made even usually level-headed Democrats into folks fully accepting of a caricature originally of right-wing design. The class Sen. Clinton has shown to go through a campaign where she has been accused of being a racist, a war-mongerer, a corporate whore, and basically a bloodlusting devil, is amazing to some of us.

Every day I see the level of venom directed at Sen. Clinton, the less I find desirable about the campaign and supporters of Sen. Obama. I will not vote for Sen. McCain, but the animus I see on site like this makes it very hard to vote in the affirmative for anyone at all.

Josh,

The problem with Hillary supporters is their stubborn refusal to realize that Hillary is a deeply flawed person.

BTW, the people of Oregon have spoken. Is Senator Wyden laying low because of your ill advice?

The fact of the matter is that the 15 years of distortion and lies about Sen. Clinton have made even usually level-headed Democrats into folks fully accepting of a caricature originally of right-wing design.

She voted for the war on Iraq*** - and that's no distortion or a lie. But her obfuscations trying to explain away this vote were considerably short of the truth.

*** In case anyone has forgotten that is the current war on Iraq that has cost tens of thousands of people their lives and immense misery to hundreds of thousands who have somehow managed to survive. Just in case, Iraqis don't count, consider around 5,000 young American men and women (including mercenaries) have died, tens of thousands have been wounded, many very seriously, and untold thousands are returning with PTSD. Many in this latter group have found living with themselves too much to bear and have committed suicide. Then there are the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and transferred to the slimy and blood-soaked hands of corrupt officials while millions of children here in the United States go to bed hungry and are without health care.

Josh: Pass on our gratitude to Hillary for all the help she has been in this crime against humanity. As another political figure once famously said, "You're doing a heck of a job....."

Sosena,

I wanted to respond to your comment to Josh Kardon about Hillary supporters not understanding how deeply flawed our candidate is.. As an Obama supporter isn't it your job to be about a change in politics and unity here? I wear my Hillary button everywhere and I can count on the Obama supporters to say something obnoxious every single day. Your remark is as patronizing as the rest. It doesn't occur to you that Hillary supporters care more about results than infomercials? If you did a little research on Obama you just might understand why we think he is going to take a nose dive when McCain brings out the big guns. The David Axelrod 4 year Obama infomercial might not stand up to the Hope and Change routine. I'll take the 35 years of change and hard work over the infomercial any day. But I guess that makes me another one of those flawed Hillary supporters who doesn't understand how flawed Hillary is...